It is with great disappointment that Vote Nevada PAC announces the withdrawal of our Independent Redistricting Commission ballot initiative, which aimed to bring redistricting into the open with legal accountability and transparency. 

We wanted Nevadans working with legislative leaders to draw district maps after each census, in open meetings, and with the focus on fair representation.  

Once again, however, the Nevada Democratic Party is using a misguided Nevada Supreme Court ruling to not only endorse the current, behind-closed-doors, and therefore corrupt redistricting process, but also to eliminate our right to amend the state constitution through the initiative process.

Suing to silence the voices of the people may be a smart political strategy, but it ultimately undermines democracy.  Both parties should review this country’s history to be reminded that neither is entitled to use apportionment to accrue power that puts donors over voters. 

In the legal complaint against our ballot initiative, see attached, the Democratic Party argues that we must place taxes in the Nevada Constitution when running ballot initiatives that amend the state Constitution and may cost even $1 in state funds.

Putting taxes into the Constitution is an irresponsible and ludicrous proposition. Nevadans are well aware of the issues we face because our mining tax is enshrined in the state Constitution. Based on that experience, we would never believe that putting more taxes in our Constitution is a sound idea. 

This argument comes from a 2022 Nevada Supreme Court ruling that re-interpreted Article 19, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which states:

Sec. 6.  Limitation on initiative making appropriation or requiring expenditure of money.  This Article does not permit the proposal of any statute or statutory amendment which makes an appropriation or otherwise requires the expenditure of money, unless such statute or amendment also imposes a sufficient tax, not prohibited by the Constitution, or otherwise constitutionally provides for raising the necessary revenue.  (Emphasis added)

The words “statute” and “statutory,” which have unambiguous definitions in the English language, (a written law passed by a legislative body) are the only two identifiers included. However, in the 2022 Education Freedom PAC v. Reid ruling, the Court interpreted Section 6 to mean statutory AND constitutional (a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed) amendment ballot initiatives. 

A plain language reading of this Section does not include constitutional amendment ballot questions, yet, because of this misguided interpretation, Nevadans are now, for all intents and purposes, blocked from exercising our constitutionally granted right to propose changes to the state Constitution that may expend even $1 in state funds. 

Lacking guidance from the Court or anyone else, we have no clear understanding of how to incorporate tax law into Nevada’s Constitution.   

Even if that guidance existed, we refuse to put taxes into our state Constitution, so our only course of action to restore our right to propose constitutional amendments through the initiative process is to amend our state Constitution to clarify its original meaning in Article 19.

The current misguided interpretation of this critical right cannot be allowed to remain unchallenged.

We are exploring the most effective way to move forward by addressing this error in a way that does not cause the Democratic Party to sue once again to silence us, so please stay tuned.

Sondra Cosgrove

Doug Goodman

Claire Thomas

You can refer back to our history of redistricting reform in Nevada here: Brief redistricting reform history in Nevada

You can read the lawsuit filed against me, Doug, and Claire here: 2025-09-29-Complaint-1